Please link the addresses of these four parties.
We really need to organize a campaign around educating Elon on smart contracts.
I think there are two questions here:
- Could POS include a POW chain that offers slight rewards in order to keep a competing POW chain from operating independently.
- Could a POW chain compete successfully against POS?
We have one POW chain that defi and others use successfully for their projects and then we are proposing a POS chain to replace it. There is going to be a big question as to if those who are using the existing POW chain successfully should switch, especially if the POW ramps ups its competitiveness by offering incentives that the POS chain does not. You could have price competition where the POS and POW chains both compete to the bottom.
I see a lot of technical discussions but few discussions of the business case for stakeholders to adopt POS. Why switch to something that is unknown when your current provider works and is loyalty offering discounts to stay.
As for developers, you have mining pools who have shown that they can come together who have teams of programmers and multi-million dollar budgets. These pools are going to become increasingly centralized as hashrate focuses on a few pools much like Bitcoin. I assume some of the core devs may also wish to stay and work to improve the POW chain.
2.0 POS may technically be better, but the business case for POW may be stronger. At the very least POW poses a credible threat to POS plans. This reminds me of that movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”. Just because a product is good doesn’t mean that it will survive.
Since the PoW chain is pretty much guaranteed to survive in some shape or form (it takes one miner to keep it alive), it makes sense to discuss how it will operate.
it’s one thing to suggest that it “might” stick around, it’s another to start planning for its active maintenance. I don’t understand your position here.
this is the most likely outcome.
I am wondering how the continuing PoW chain will cope with ever growing state and other problems that the mainnet has today. Removing difficulty bomb is a trivial task. But adopting statelessness, regenesis and other techniques including client optimisations addressing the growing size of the chain data would not be that trivial and would require corresponding qualifications. Moreover, some of the optimisations after the merge will probably use properties of PoS consensus (speculating here) and won’t be suitable for the PoW; like the weak subjectivity nature of PoS.
All of this makes me think that even though there will be an alternative chain it would require a decent amount of value put into it to make the above happen and let this chain survive in the long term.
That’s why my earlier suggestion required a payment model for nodes to be adopted since scaling is fundamentally a node-dependent process.
Well - I have several points:
first, I do not know if ETH2 is decentralized enough or has enough of decentralization measures to match ETH1. I see lots of fake cheering on Twitter, which is totally irrelevant in my humble opinion. One million ETH2 agents don’t matter if they all are run by a single whale.
second - I really hope that we are able to create PoS systems as decentralized as PoW. But this requires genuine community, governance, respect, discussion, and letting every point of view to be presented, respected, and evaluated. Not just ETH price pumping. Greed is not compatible with science.
Indeed there are worries that POS is not decentralized enough. Hopefully approaching 2.0 there are better solutions to encourage POS adoption among the masses rather than a few hosting providers and exchanges.
One possible remedy is to add provisions to AGPL to prevent excessive centralization.
The license would state something like
“This software shall not be used by any single entity that controls more than 1% of the network”
The turbogeth, silkworm projects are working hard to provide increased scalability now. Eth 2 is a R&D project that has for years failed to deliver on its ever-dimishing promises. All we have is a “beacon chain” with millions of ETH locked up doing nothing much but earning rewards and a promised Merge with no engineering specification. I expect the PoW chain will persist, either because the Merge never arrives, or because the Merge leads to a chain split.
I agree 100% that the merge will take a lot longer than expected and the combination of burning miner fees and not making an algo change to prevent ASICs from taking over the network will ensure by 2022 Ethereum will no longer be mined by GPUs. It is odd that the development community does not see ASICs as a security risk of a chain split going into POS
I’m not sure what you mean by how should ETH PoW be governed. I think it should still use EtHash. Why? Because ASIC miners will have to throw away their equipment. Even though ASIC’s can be a threat, I think PoS is actually less secure. Someone stealing 51% of the network hashing power is almost impossible. Maybe a hacker could hack into wallets and control the network. If you switch to ProgPoW, The network hash rate will drop a lot for quite a while. This is sure to make the blockchain vulnerable. The thing is, if PoW will survive, I think it should be a copy of the current PoW ETH Blockchain.
By the way, something that people do not realize is that the merged chain may be slower than ETH2. Marrying two very complex systems - no one guarantees that the result will run as fast as ETH1 …
Lol, ETH becoming a centralized value store. Nice decentralized currency you got there guys. How are new coins made in ETH 2.0?
Via distributed consensus protocol?